SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Guj) 1105

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BIREN VAISHNAV, J.
PRADIPBHAI RATILAL NAVIK & others - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & others - Respondent
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13769 of 2016 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR FIXING DATE OF HEARING) NO. 1 of 2021
Decided On : 30-11-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For The Appellant : MAYANK K TRIVEDI, MR KK TRIVEDI
For The Respondent: MR.MEET THAKKAR, AGP, MR DHAVAL G NANAVATI

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 – Writ petition - Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 - Section 48(2), 65(2), 70 - Power to vary scheme on ground of error, irregularity or informality - Petitioner submit that area of land of original plot of petitioners was required to be considered as that of 18,211 square meters instead of 16,233 square meters and proportionately area of Final Plot ought to have been increased - Respondent also submit on reading communications of Town Planning Officer and that of Municipal Corporation that there was no error in those communications inasmuch as on notification being issued and Preliminary Town Planning Scheme had been sanctioned, having become part of Act, only relief that could be available and which was granted was that they could consider payment of compensation - Municipal Corporation submitted that there was no error on part of authorities – Held, Not including total area of petitioner and not treating constitution of final plot for petitioner in proportion to said area Town Planning Authority committed a manifest error falling within purview of Section 70 of Act - This being an error required to be rectified, State Government has to exercise power of variation in scheme qua said aspect by accepting ownership of land of petitioner and by reconstituting final plot of petitioner proportionately - Municipal Corporation is directed to propose to State Government to vary sanctioned preliminary scheme in accordance with provisions of Section 70 of Act - Petition disposed of.

ORDER :

1. The prayer of the petitioner reads as under:

    “(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue writ in nature of mandamus of any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to make necessary variation in the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme No.44 (Jahangirabad) for corecting area of the Block No.128- Original Plot No.35 as that of 18,211 Sq. Mtrs. Instead of 16,233 Sq. Mtrs. and consequently for increasing area of corresponding Final Plot/s proportionately to be allotted to the petitioners.

AND/OR IN THE ALTERNATE

YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or a writ in nature of mandamus of any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the Notification dated 26.09.2013 (Annexure-””K”) of the State Government

2. Facts in brief are as under:

3. The petitioners are the owners in possession of land bearing block No.128 of village:Jahangirabad admeasuring 20740 square meters. The Surat Municipal Corporation declared its intention to make a draft Town Planning Scheme No.44 on 07.01.2000. The State Government sanctioned the draft town planning scheme under the provisions of Section 48(2) of the Gujarat Town Planing and Urban Development Act by a notification dated 15.06.2021 and the Town Planning Officer was appointed by the State Government on 23.11.2001 to make the preliminary scheme. The original area of the land was 21,550 square meters and block no.128 was renumbered as original plot no.35. It appears that the area of the original plot no.35 was shown as approximately 16,232 square meters i.e. approximately 4507 square meters less (original area 20,740 square meters). Aggrieved by the shrinkage of the original plot, the petitioners lodged their objection by a letter dated 20.06.2005 to the Town Planning Officer showing the correct area of the land in the original plot. The error continued and when the final plot no.35A was allotted, based on the area of the original plot being 16,232 square meters, after a deduction of 30%, what was allotted as final plots was Final Plot No.35A admeasuring 7493 square meters and Final Plot No.35B admeasuring 3873 square meters aggregating to approximately 13666 square meters. The petitioner again made a representation on 05.02.2013. Pursuant to this representation, the State Government directed the Chief Town Planner to make necessary inquiry and submit a report. On 22.05.2013, the Town Planning Officer submitted a report stating that there is an error or discrepancy in the mentioning of the original plot. On the basis of the measurement carried out by the District Inspector of Land Records, the original area was approximately 18,211 square meters. A clarification was also sought by the Town Planning Officer on 05.04.2013 based on which the DILR, Surat, submitted a report dated 15.04.2013, stating that the area of block no.128 was 18211 square meters. A hissa mapani form no.4 also accordingly stated so. The preliminary town planning scheme was approved on 26.09.2013, without correcting the error of the original plot no.35 which according to the petitioner even based on the DILR report was 18,211 square meters and not 16,233 square meters, based on which, final plots no.35A and 35B were allotted.

4. Mr.K.K.Trivedi learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the area of land of the original plot of the petitioners was required to be considered as that of 18,211 square meters in stead of 16,233 square meters and proportionately the area of the Final Plot ought to have been increased.

    6.1 Mr.Trivedi would submit that treating the original plots’ area as 16,233 based on which, Final Plot No.35A and 35B were allotted, should be corrected by treating the original plot area to be 18,211 after deducting 30% from 18,211 square meters. He would submit that though based on the revenue record, the attention of the Town Planning Officer/State Government was drawn to this, the same has not yet been rectified, nor any measurement carried o

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
      whatsapp-icon Back to top